Support NeoGAF

[cubicle47b]

But why do you feel that you need to point out that he is anything? Phil isn't noteworthy in his behaviour. In any way. Most people are worse than him and the vast majority of his critics are considerably worse. He's not an asshole. He is a normal person.

It was just an example of where I disagreed with the videos in the original post. There are a bunch of other examples, but I don't care for gamergate related arguments. They get ugly very quickly.

I disagree that most people are worse than Phil Fish unless you limit the people you include in that statement to, I don't know, the angrier parts of Twitter. I agree that he's a pretty normal person for that specific group and think that's a problem.

 

[water_wendi]

Just finished part 3 and it is spot on.

 

[kinoki]

It was just an example of where I disagreed with the videos in the original post. There are a bunch of other examples, but I don't care for gamergate related arguments. They get ugly very quickly.

I disagree that most people are worse than Phil Fish unless you limit the people you include in that statement to, I don't know, the angrier parts of Twitter. I agree that he's a pretty normal person for that specific group and think that's a problem.

I've worked for customer support and I don't necessarily equate online persona with the quality of a person at face value. But, people in general are not good people. Angry Jacks are everywhere and people aren't by default good. He's just a normal person warts and all. He's normal. In no way is his behaviour exceptional. Every attack on him is an attack on another human being who is just trying to be himself. Stop it, please. Just admit he's a normal bloke like the rest of us and leave it at that.

 

[Kater]

Part 3 was very interesting. I might write more about it when I saw the rest of them.

Great series so far.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I just want to try to distinguish the point I'm trying to make here. I'm arguing that yes, the personal is political, and personal choices, actions, and even speech carries latent values associated with them. I'm not trying to argue that this is necessarily a bad thing or something that we don't want to occur. I'm just taking issue with an argument that proceeds from "This action has no subtext associated with it" when it clearly does (in my opinion anyway).

If I offer you a sandwich and you say "I'm a vegan" instead of "yes or no", you're inherently making the issue political (the degree or severity to which you do so is obviously minor in the grand scheme of the spectrum). That doesn't mean that saying you're a vegan is a 'bad' or 'wrong' response, but it's certainly not a 'neutral' response. A neutral response is simply "no". Take his car/environmentalist example. I offer my friend a ride in my car, he says "I'm an environmentalist". That can't tell me anything about his decision unless the context is supplying a negative relationship between environmentalists and the use of cars. Else I could simply ask "Do you as an environmentalist want a ride in my car?" and he might say yes, after all, perhaps he only strongly limits, not entirely excludes, the use of cars in his life.

There's a spectrum of political behavior with that of the individual on one hand and that of governments on the other.

Yeah I don't see how his whole party analogy worked with Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian isn't some person in a party who is making games because she feels that they are missing a female or feminist perspective, and tells people about it if she's asked; she's the person someone offered a copy of GTA to, and she launched into an essay about how GTA is a horrible game that results in real-world violence against women. There is nothing innocuous or non-judgemental about her comments—I mean, that's the whole point. She believes she is morally right, so it's not like she's going to sit on her hands and keep her beliefs to herself.

 

[Foxtastical]

Good so far. On to part 4.

 

[cubicle47b]

I've worked for customer support and I don't necessarily equate online persona with the quality of a person at face value. But, people in general are not good people. Angry Jacks are everywhere and people aren't by default good. He's just a normal person warts and all. He's normal. In no way is his behaviour exceptional. Every attack on him is an attack on another human being who is just trying to be himself. Stop it, please. Just admit he's a normal bloke like the rest of us and leave it at that.

Perhaps you're right. Maybe Phil Fish is completely normal in the way he treats other people. That just means most people are assholes. They (and myself, it's something I've worked on for years, and continue to work on) need to work on being better.

 

[Camp Freddie]

Yeah, and lord help you if you choose to be a modern agnostic or an apatheist (read: we can't prove the existence or lack of existence either way, so why's everyone so bent out of shape?), cuz that makes you an enemy on both sides of that debate, because neither of the worst screamers on either side of that debate can stand a true neutral moderate stance on the issue, when that's exactly what should be achieved in the end, albeit achieved without compromising one's position on the subject, as it's an entirely personal belief. Like the video says, everyone can't stand the idea that their views aren't right or correct. So an agnostic is the worst person ever, because they're signalling both sides that they're both "wrong", in the same way vegans signal to people eating a ham sandwich that they're "wrong" by their very existence.

The problem is that people interpret "agnosticism" as "I need more evidence to make my decision", so you get evangelists preaching at you from all sides.
In my experience, agnostics have usually decided that it is impossible for suitable "evidence" to exist regarding god (usually because of how they've defined god), so preaching "evidence" at them is pointless.

One thing that I think people forget is that you often change peoples' minds long after the argument "ended". I was probably a lot less understanding about transgender issues when I was younger (it's simple! cock and balls = you're a dude, even if you don't feel like one!). Same goes for some of 3rd wave feminism and what I would later understand to be post-colonialism.
I never "lost" or "conceeded" an argument about them. Usually, I changed my views after reflecting on what people had told me long after the argument had ended.
Pride doesn't allow us to easily change our mind in an argument, but eventually the truth will (usually) creep in.

 

[aeolist]

Yeah I don't see how his whole party analogy worked with Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian isn't some person in a party who is making games because she feels that they are missing a female or feminist perspective, and tells people about it if she's asked; she's the person someone offered a copy of GTA to, and she launched into an essay about how GTA is a horrible game that results in real-world violence against women. There is nothing innocuous or non-judgemental about her comments—I mean, that's the whole point. She believes she is morally right, so it's not like she's going to sit on her hands and keep her beliefs to herself.

she doesn't do that at all, her videos are basically saying "games have these elements"

at no point does she say they're bad games or their audiences are bad people. if you feels so terribly judged by someone pointing out something that obvious about your entertainment product then that's on you and not sarkeesian.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Yeah I don't see how his whole party analogy worked with Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian isn't some person in a party who is making games because she feels that they are missing a female or feminist perspective, and tells people about it if she's asked; she's the person someone offered a copy of GTA to, and she launched into an essay about how GTA is a horrible game that results in real-world violence against women. There is nothing innocuous or non-judgemental about her comments—I mean, that's the whole point. She believes she is morally right, so it's not like she's going to sit on her hands and keep her beliefs to herself.

I'm sorry, in which video does she say this? I must have missed that.

Unless you can find where she says that, you're playing into the exact same (il)logic games that his "Angry Jack" example does.

To my knowledge, Anita has only ever criticized aspects of games, but has been careful to say that enjoying these games doesn't make you a bad person.

 

[AlucardGV]

she doesn't do that at all, her videos are basically saying "games have these elements"

at no point does she say they're bad games or their audiences are bad people. if you feels so terribly judged by someone pointing out something that obvious about your entertainment product then that's on you and not sarkeesian.

her tweets lately have ben kinda "eeeehhhhh"

i feel that she would be better if she detach herself from the mcintosh guy, unless she can't write anything by herself.

 

[John Rabbit]

Yeah I don't see how his whole party analogy worked with Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian isn't some person in a party who is making games because she feels that they are missing a female or feminist perspective, and tells people about it if she's asked; she's the person someone offered a copy of GTA to, and she launched into an essay about how GTA is a horrible game that results in real-world violence against women. There is nothing innocuous or non-judgemental about her comments—I mean, that's the whole point. She believes she is morally right, so it's not like she's going to sit on her hands and keep her beliefs to herself.

this is a fundamental misread of Sarkeesian's videos, their content, and their intent.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Yeah I don't see how his whole party analogy worked with Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian isn't some person in a party who is making games because she feels that they are missing a female or feminist perspective, and tells people about it if she's asked; she's the person someone offered a copy of GTA to, and she launched into an essay about how GTA is a horrible game that results in real-world violence against women. There is nothing innocuous or non-judgemental about her comments—I mean, that's the whole point. She believes she is morally right, so it's not like she's going to sit on her hands and keep her beliefs to herself.

Please watch part 2 of of this series. Your post is a perfect example of what is discussed there.

 

[Anton Sugar]

her tweets lately have ben kinda "eeeehhhhh"

i feel that she would be better if she detach herself from the mcintosh guy, unless she can't write anything by herself.

I vehemently disagree with some of her views on violence/portrayals of violence (as opposed to sexual and sexualized violence), but I'm not about to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most of the time, she's spot on.

 

[MrJoobJoob]

her tweets lately have ben kinda "eeeehhhhh"

i feel that she would be better if she detach herself from the mcintosh guy, unless she can't write anything by herself.

I just went through her recent tweets and she still hasn't made any sweeping generalizations about gamers or devs being sexist. Mostly it's been about gender portrayals in Arkham Knight & The Witcher, and all the Reddit racism stuff.

 

[Red Liquorice]

Just finished part 3 and it is spot on.

Same.

The part about their bubble never bursting is something that hits so close to my own thoughts on life. White, straight, priviledged (young) men often have never had anything in their lives to pop that bubble making them question or evaluate it, so they see anyone who has or is doing that as doing something wrong.

Sometimes I think they are actually deluding themselves that their behaviour to "others" (anyone not like them or falling in line with their world view) is justified and that they think they're helping, or showing them the right path. Or maybe it's just their view of survival of the fittest and they think it's their inherent right to bash down the peg that stands out.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Yeah I don't see how his whole party analogy worked with Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian isn't some person in a party who is making games because she feels that they are missing a female or feminist perspective, and tells people about it if she's asked; she's the person someone offered a copy of GTA to, and she launched into an essay about how GTA is a horrible game that results in real-world violence against women. There is nothing innocuous or non-judgemental about her comments—I mean, that's the whole point. She believes she is morally right, so it's not like she's going to sit on her hands and keep her beliefs to herself.

Gonna need some citation on this purported essay about how GTA causes violence against women. Because as far as I recall there is no such essay by Anita. Until then this just looks like more words than necessary to say "I haven't seen and/or understand Anita's work."

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Watched the videos a few days ago. Very, very good.
Whats even better is that miny people are kind enough to instantly prove some of the points of the video. Its like calling someone a racist and the person responds with a racial slur.

 

[Veelk]

Yeah I don't see how his whole party analogy worked with Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian isn't some person in a party who is making games because she feels that they are missing a female or feminist perspective, and tells people about it if she's asked; she's the person someone offered a copy of GTA to, and she launched into an essay about how GTA is a horrible game that results in real-world violence against women. There is nothing innocuous or non-judgemental about her comments—I mean, that's the whole point. She believes she is morally right, so it's not like she's going to sit on her hands and keep her beliefs to herself.

It works in the sense that she is not making a moral judgement on any given person. When offered a meat sandwich, a vegan would reject it (or atleast have trouble accepting it) because they believe eating meat is wrong. Yet that doesn't necessarily mean they have anything against people who do eat meat. She's going to argue that GTA is sexist and sexism is wrong, but at no point does she attack anyone in particular for liking it.

That's what the video's analogy is about. The assumption that simply because a person made a moral judgement on a subject, and found the subject lacking in that morality, that moral judgement transfers over onto people who disagree and partake in that subject. People associate themselves too strongly with the particular subject, even if it's a minor part of their lives, and believe it is an attack on them when it's not. That's the whole point of the analogy.

 

[Litany]

There is nothing innocuous or non-judgemental about her comments—I mean, that's the whole point. She believes she is morally right, so it's not like she's going to sit on her hands and keep her beliefs to herself.

You're leaping from her expressing her honest judgement of the game, to a judgement of people who enjoy it. You don't need to make this leap, and it's perfectly possible not to. This is part of what the videos are about.

As a woman GTA V grosses me out as well, the way that women are portrayed (particularly in their sexuality) makes me feel extremely unwelcome as a player. I'm honestly telling you the truth when I say that this doesn't mean I'm judging you if you like it, any more than I'm judging my boyfriend who plays it all damn day. As I said upthread, one of my favourite games is Hitman Blood Money, which is sexist as hell. I don't feel the need to judge myself over this either. It's possible.

 

[Fuchsdh]

It works in the sense that she is not making a moral judgement on any given person.

When offered a meat sandwich, a vegan would reject it (or atleast have trouble accepting it) because they believe eating meat is wrong. Yet that doesn't necessarily mean they have anything against people who do eat meat. She's going to argue that GTA is sexist and sexism is wrong, but at no point does she attack anyone in particular for liking it.

That's what the video's analogy is about. The assumption that simply because a person made a moral judgement on a subject, and found the subject lacking in that morality, that moral judgement transfers over onto people who disagree and partake in that subject, when that's often not the case.

Fair point. I dunno if I can completely agree with that view, though. I mean, if you have someone who says "I like gay people, but I don't think they should marry", people take that as an intrinsic value judgement that gay people are lesser. I think that the sort of moral judgements he describes are pretty constant—it's just what issues people choose to or instinctively react to as a personal judgement, versus what they brush off. I imagine if I told you "I can't believe you really like Inglorious Basterds," most people would probably wonder why I care so much about a stupid movie and move on. But swap in "I can't believe you actually think there's a divine power," and you're hitting something much more core to that person.

In that respect I do think the video had a point tangentially in that it's worth considering why your choice of media really has to become such a core part of your identity; games are ultimately entertainment, and it's something I focus on (even as we're on a video game forum) because otherwise it is certainly easy to lose perspective.

 

[John Rabbit]

part 6 is really losing me with this "how we win" thing.

he spends 5 videos disarming and disassembling the GamerGate movement and re-framing it as a war from "Norse mythology; one that can't be won but can be prolonged" and immediately undermines that entire narrative by claiming we can "win" this "thing".

 

[MrHoot]

part 6 is really losing me with this "how we win" thing.

he spends 5 videos disarming and disassembling the GamerGate movement and re-framing it as a war from "Norse mythology; one that can't be won but can be prolonged" and immediately undermines that entire narrative by claiming we can "win" this "thing".

I think the phrasing is poor, but he probably means how "we" (as just a general population) may overcome future problems of mass internet outrage when it comes to be again. More like a prevention thing.

 

[Anton Sugar]

part 6 is really losing me with this "how we win" thing.

he spends 5 videos disarming and disassembling the GamerGate movement and re-framing it as a war from "Norse mythology; one that can't be won but can be prolonged" and immediately undermines that entire narrative by claiming we can "win" this "thing".

I remember the Norse comparison, but thought it was more of a tongue-in-cheek way of saying "holy shit, these idiots just won't stop". He specifically states that Gamergate is basically dead--I think the last video was how we can "win" via improving the state of the industry by action, activism, etc. Not necessarily "here's how we beat Gamergate".

 

[hurricanes]

Yeah I don't see how his whole party analogy worked with Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian isn't some person in a party who is making games because she feels that they are missing a female or feminist perspective, and tells people about it if she's asked; she's the person someone offered a copy of GTA to, and she launched into an essay about how GTA is a horrible game that results in real-world violence against women. There is nothing innocuous or non-judgemental about her comments—I mean, that's the whole point. She believes she is morally right, so it's not like she's going to sit on her hands and keep her beliefs to herself.

Oh my... You are going to make yourself a perfect example of angry Jack.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Fair point. I dunno if I can completely agree with that view, though. I mean, if you have someone who says "I like gay people, but I don't think they should marry"

I guess that comparison would work if she said "gamers should not be allowed to purchase sexist games". But that's not the case. At all.

 

[Croatoan]

So, I just finished video 2 and it made me realize why I am such an easy going happy person.

I flat don't give a fuck about what other people think about me. I will do what I want to do and enjoy it regardless of your judgment. Judge away!

Furthermore I could give two fucks about what other people do with their lives and time as long as it doesn't effect me, my family, my friends, and isn't mustache twirlingly evil or detrimental to society at large.

Wanna turn off your electricty? Have fun bro!

Wanna make videos about feminism in games. Go for it!

Doesn't mean I support either idea. I simply don't care what they do...

The downside of this is I find it hard to understand why some people DO care. Like, I really don't get the hate for Anita. She seems like a nice woman making videos on the internet about something she cares about. I don't really care about her plight, but my wife does, and for that I support Anita. But if my wife wasn't into games or didn't feel strongly about better representation of women in games I would likely just ignore Anita.

Not maliciously mind you, and not out of spite, but feminism isn't something I champion or even follow.

I am excited to finish these videos and see if he answers why people do care so much to go to the extent they have to harass Anita and others like her.

Anyways, back to the videos!

 

[Jumplion]

This too.

I'm fine for people thinking or believing whatever they want and living their lives as they see fit. However, they don't need to make simple questions or innocuous, pedestrian situations more complicated with their personal political/ social perspective. All that does is make the moment awkward and creates unnecessary debate and questions that normally shouldn't be asked over something so insignificant. A simple yes or no is sufficient. As if I care you're a vegan or an environmentalist. To me, that shows a level of misguided sanctimonious pride and self righteous, that you have to tell me why you can't accept my sandwich or why you can't accept my offer for a ride. People have the need to express themselves but forget the world doesn't revolve around them and that nobody cares.

You're really proving the video's point. There's nothing immediately or intentionally political in a simple statement of "I'm vegan" when someone denys an offer of a sandwich. That person could simply intend to give you a simple reason of why they're denying a sandwich.

You are projecting that they are being "self righteous" or "sanctimonious". You are assuming that they think the "world revolves around them". And you are thinking these things because you think they are judging you, when they could be making a simple toss-away statement. Even if they were judging you, what does it matter to you? It shouldn't matter to you unless, as the video points out, you take it personally and think that they're getting something out of judging you, being "self righteous".

I think you're missing my point entirely which is that personal preference is personal politics (as well as selling vegan-ism short because I don't think many would describe it simply as an aversion to the taste of meat or a preference for non-meat). I discussed the decision-reasoning jump in earlier posts (some of which is above).

If I had time, I would respond to more of your stuff, but I'll boil it down to here (though I appreciate the discussion).

I just want to clarify, I totally agree with you that most everything is political in some nature. But I have a feeling you're arguing on a red herring here. The discussion shouldn't be on whether something is political or not.

What I'm arguing against you is the practical side of doing so. Believe me, I love to raise a stink every now and then to point out when my friends do micro-aggressions. But when I do, I don't go into detail of the political ramifications of what they said. Most likely they would deny whatever implications came from it.

With these specific scenarios in the video, it's a step further back. If I'm a vegan and someone offers a sandwich, it's just as reasonable for me to say "no thanks, I'm not hungry" as it is to say "no thanks, I'm a vegan". We could argue the ins and outs of the reasoning for why one would say the latter instead of the former, but practically speaking there's nothing meaningfully or intentionally political in that statement. The point of that video was to show that the receiver of that statement projects those assumed politics onto the person, thinking "they're judging me" when it's just a statement. Heck, even if they were intending it to be a political statement, what does it matter? There's no reason to get uppity about it in retaliation.

 

[spineduke]

I'd love to see a series from him that's analyzes internet culture as a whole - I found the second episode especially compelling.

Great work!

 

[Fuchsdh]

I guess that comparison would work if she said "gamers should not be allowed to purchase sexist games". But that's not the case. At all.

That's a good point. Perhaps the better comparison then is with someone who professes to be fine with gay people, but considers sodomy an abomination according to their church's teaching. If that person doesn't actually want to make it illegal and thus in no way is threatening to harm that person practicing their sexuality, I still understand why someone would be deeply offended by the sentiment.

No that you mention it, I just remembered that there was a point where Gamergaters sided with Jack Thompson (a guy who actually did attempt to stop the sales of games with violent/sexualized content through the courts) simply because he didn't like Anita just like they didn't.

Haha, I had to look that one up. Damn goofy:

https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/gamergate-supports-jack-thompson

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

 

[Veelk]

Fair point. I dunno if I can completely agree with that view, though. I mean, if you have someone who says "I like gay people, but I don't think they should marry", people take that as an intrinsic value judgement that gay people are lesser. I think that the sort of moral judgements he describes are pretty constant—it's just what issues people choose to or instinctively react to as a personal judgement, versus what they brush off. I imagine if I told you "I can't believe you really like Inglorious Basterds," most people would probably wonder why I care so much about a stupid movie and move on. But swap in "I can't believe you actually think there's a divine power," and you're hitting something much more core to that person.

In that respect I do think the video had a point tangentially in that it's worth considering why your choice of media really has to become such a core part of your identity; games are ultimately entertainment, and it's something I focus on (even as we're on a video game forum) because otherwise it is certainly easy to lose perspective.

Gay people are having their lives interfered with based on the moral judgements of others. GTA fans aren't. The comparison would only be valid if feminism was trying to censor things. Obviously, this is not happening. Even if she disapproves of people playing it, it's not up to her and she knows it isn't and isn't trying to prevent such a thing. She understands that people have the right to play and enjoy what they want and her only mission statement is to spread awareness of what sexism is. If she is making a valid argument, and it applies to GTA, and people feel a discomfort of having enjoyed it, that's not something anyone can do anything about, what awareness is. It alleviates ignorance and they are now knowingly engaging with something that has immoral aspects to it. The only real counters to this are if you try to argue sexism is a good thing, or try to deny that sexist elements don't exist in the game, both of which are unfeasible, so they have to accept that inherent flaw in the product they enjoy or else disengage with the product. They might not enjoy that feeling, but that's not an attack. It's pretty much the thing she repeats most in all her videos.

The grey area your talking about is possible, but only in extremes that Anita has stayed very clear of. In her actual arguments, nothing of the sort is going on. And even then, if we are bringing in the Religious-Homosexual dynamic into the mix, she's the one that's promoting acceptance of a repressed minority. In this analogy, she'd be the homosexual condemning the religious for interfering with her rights. She'd be making a moral judgement on the privileged who have been interfering with how she wants to live her life, but as a reaction to a moral judgement on her personhood. She has a right to speak up on that.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

I guess that comparison would work if she said "gamers should not be allowed to purchase sexist games". But that's not the case. At all.

No that you mention it, I just remembered that there was a point where Gamergaters sided with Jack Thompson (a guy who actually did attempt to stop the sales of games with violent/sexualized content through the courts) simply because he didn't like Anita just like they didn't.

 

[MrHoot]

I've worked for customer support and I don't necessarily equate online persona with the quality of a person at face value. But, people in general are not good people. Angry Jacks are everywhere and people aren't by default good. He's just a normal person warts and all. He's normal. In no way is his behaviour exceptional. Every attack on him is an attack on another human being who is just trying to be himself. Stop it, please. Just admit he's a normal bloke like the rest of us and leave it at that.

Good point.

It's maybe the only thing that is slightly shaky about Innuendo's current series. I agree with probably 85-90% of it. Especially since I was partly an angry jack at the beginning of GG (Never used the tag or tweeted, but i was firmly "in the middle". I was on 4chan when the thing blew up. But ultimately i got tired of the dumb rhetoric and the fact taht people so against outrage culture were participating in it even more in the end. The amount of hypocrisy was so huge, and no one was ever willing to admit it)

But the "angry jack" definition is so broad, and simplistic. Potentially, anyone at any time is an angry jack. It was the reason that I (and others, as the effectiveness of #NotYourShield worked so well for GG, reeling in people who genuinely thought they were being scapegoated, regardless if it was true or not) stayed in the middle for quite some time, because from a distance it just looked at angry jacks/jackies yelling at other angry jacks/jackies. It's an easy thing to manipulate and to discredit someone (You don't necessarily agree ? You must be an angry jack (i.e. you must have interiorised mysoginy or you're a racist or whatever) I don't think that's how innuendo intends but that's how i see it used a lot of time.

Other than that, it's a very very good series. Offers some nice introspection

 

[Deleted member 126221]

That's a good point. Perhaps the better comparison then is with someone who professes to be fine with gay people, but considers sodomy an abomination according to their church's teaching. If that person doesn't actually want to make it illegal and thus in no way is threatening to harm that person practicing their sexuality, I still understand why someone would be deeply offended by the sentiment.

Hmm... Your comparisons are getting pretty weird, I have trouble following. Again, she's not saying you're a bad person or anything if you play games that contain problematic elements. You're the one filling the blanks with that interpretation.

...seriously, watch part 2.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Oh my... You are going to make yourself a perfect example of angry Jack.

...Except I'm not angry, at all. I don't agree with all of Sarkeesian's points, but I have no problems with her videos, and if she convinces people to want different things from video games—that's tough for the people who want the gratuitous T&A or mostly shooters, but the market gets to decide.

I clearly made a poor analogy, though, so that's all on me.

 

[Anton Sugar]

...Except I'm not angry, at all.

I clearly made a poor analogy, though, so that's all on me.

I think he was referring to you turning Anita's actual argument into one that she has never made, and then taking issue with that (false) argument. Which is something Angry Jacks (like TotalBiscuit, Amazing Atheist, etc.) do.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I think he was referring to you turning Anita's actual argument into one that she has never made, and then taking issue with that (false) argument. Which is something Angry Jacks (like TotalBiscuit, Amazing Atheist, etc.) do.

Again, I was trying to use the video's party analogy. I did a poor job. I was not trying to literally say that someone had told Sarkeesian to play a video game and she blew up on them and said it caused violence.

Sorry for the derail on this page.

 

[DOG3NZAKA]

You're really proving the video's point. There's nothing immediately or intentionally political in a simple statement of "I'm vegan" when someone denys an offer of a sandwich. That person could simply intend to give you a simple reason of why they're denying a sandwich.

You are projecting that they are being "self righteous" or "sanctimonious". You are assuming that they think the "world revolves around them". And you are thinking these things because you think they are judging you, when they could be making a simple toss-away statement. Even if they were judging you, what does it matter to you? It shouldn't matter to you unless, as the video points out, you take it personally and think that they're getting something out of judging you, being "self righteous".



If I had time, I would respond to more of your stuff, but I'll boil it down to here (though I appreciate the discussion).

I just want to clarify, I totally agree with you that most everything is political in some nature. But I have a feeling you're arguing on a red herring here. The discussion shouldn't be on whether something is political or not.

What I'm arguing against you is the practical side of doing so. Believe me, I love to raise a stink every now and then to point out when my friends do micro-aggressions. But when I do, I don't go into detail of the political ramifications of what they said. Most likely they would deny whatever implications came from it.

With these specific scenarios in the video, it's a step further back. If I'm a vegan and someone offers a sandwich, it's just as reasonable for me to say "no thanks, I'm not hungry" as it is to say "no thanks, I'm a vegan". We could argue the ins and outs of the reasoning for why one would say the latter instead of the former, but practically speaking there's nothing meaningfully or intentionally political in that statement. The point of that video was to show that the receiver of that statement projects those assumed politics onto the person, thinking "they're judging me" when it's just a statement. Heck, even if they were intending it to be a political statement, what does it matter? There's no reason to get uppity about it in retaliation.

I think Brawndo Addict touched on this. It's not so much the political and social implications that is annoying, but rather the presumptuous jump in logic. If I were to offer you a sandwich, you said "no" and then I were to ask "why not", stating that you're a vegan is a perfectly reasonable response. It complies with logical flow of the conversation because each answer satisfies each question. But to answer with "I'm a vegan" without first saying yes or no or giving me the chance to ask why, is an illogical bypass in the conversation. You're getting ahead of me, basically. Such a response doesn't answer the question. A simple yes or no question is met with an arguably politicized statement, that wasn't asked for. It's useless information, but made worse because a simple question was ignored in order to make an unnecessary act of expression.

Plus, yeah, some people are smug assholes. Some folks have passive aggressive, self righteous agendas for every little thing because they feel they are so self important that they believe everyone else needs to to know "why" to everything.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

https://youtu.be/c6TrKkkVEhs?t=727

This is why the ethics policy change certain sites made in response to gamergate were so harmful. That and it legitimized the movement so well that it had to take Zoe Quinn posting the irc chatroom to turn it back around.

I'm a few pages late but I couldn't agree more. From the jump, treating requests for an "ethics policy", and Kotaku in particular treating the Zoe/Nathan story with a shred of respect was just so terrible and lent unwarranted legitimacy to the whole thing.

 

[aeolist]

I think Brawndo Addict touched on this. It's not so much the political and social implications that is annoying, but rather the presumptuous jump in logic. If I were to offer you a sandwich, you said "no" and then I were to ask "why not", stating that you're a vegan is a perfectly reasonable response. It complies with logical flow of the conversation because each answer satisfies the question. But to answer with "I'm a vegan" without first saying yes or no or giving me the chance to ask why, is an illogical bypass in the conversation. Such a response doesn't answer the question. A simple yes or no question is met with an arguably politicized statement, that wasn't asked for. It's useless information, but made worse because a simple question was ignored in order to make an unnecessary act of expression.

Plus, yeah, some people have are smug assholes. Some folks have passive aggressive, self righteous agendas for every little thing because they feel they are so self important that they believe everyone else needs to to know "why" to everything.

this is nitpicking. the question/answer process in the video was "want a sandwich?/i'm a vegan" because it's brief and easier to fit into a simple illustration. you could replace every instance of it with "want a sandwich?/no thanks/why not/i'm a vegan" and it would be essentially the same. people will feel judged and angry about it even if the response follows a longer conversational flow.

and yes, some people are assholes about being vegan. the point of it is that some people are made uncomfortable by the personal decisions of others without any judgement taking place.

 

[CosmicQueso]

but rather the presumptuous jump in logic. If I were to offer you a sandwich, you said "no" and then I were to ask "why not", stating that you're a vegan is a perfectly reasonable response. It complies with logical flow of the conversation because each answer satisfies each question. But to answer with "I'm a vegan" without first saying yes or no or giving me the chance to ask why, is an illogical bypass in the conversation.

Maybe the person saying no wants you to know why because they are not saying no to you the person, but no to the sandwich. It could show an appreciation of the offer, and a rejection of the item being offered but not the person doing the offering.

 

[Veelk]

I think we need to be careful about using angry jack as a dunce cap to put on members when they make an argument against this video.

The model of Angry Jack is very thorough and it does apply to pretty much the entirety of gamergate population, to various degrees depending on individuality. However, in a debate, it should not be used as a simplified ad hominem. It is not enough to point and say "You're just what the video was talking about! You're Angry Jack!"

Even if it applies, using the model that frivolously instead of a real argument will devoid it of meaning. Angry Jack ought to be used as a helpful tool in understanding. He's a good roadmap, but we still need to get to the actual places ourselves in any debate. We need to take the arguments given and engage them to arrive at the best possible conclusion.

Simply applying the Angry Jack name to any person will turn it into the strawman argument that it is now wrongfully being accused of being.

 

[MrHoot]

I think we need to be careful about using angry jack as a dunce cap to put on members when they make an argument against this video.

The model of Angry Jack is very thorough and it does apply to pretty much the entirety of gamergate population, to various degrees depending on individuality. However, in a debate, it should not be used as a simplified ad hominem. It is not enough to point and say "You're just what the video was talking about! You're Angry Jack!"

Even if it applies, using the model that frivolously instead of a real argument will devoid it of meaning. Angry Jack ought to be used as a helpful tool in understanding. He's a good roadmap, but we still need to get to the actual places ourselves in any debate. We need to take the arguments given and engage them to arrive at the best possible conclusion.

Simply applying the Angry Jack name to any person will turn it into the strawman argument that it is now wrongfully being accused of being.

Thank a lot for putting into better words what I was clumsily trying to explain !

 

[DOG3NZAKA]

this is nitpicking. the question/answer process in the video was "want a sandwich?/i'm a vegan" because it's brief and easier to fit into a simple illustration. you could replace every instance of it with "want a sandwich?/no thanks/why not/i'm a vegan" and it would be essentially the same. people will feel judged and angry about it even if the response follows a longer conversational flow.

and yes, some people are assholes about being vegan. the point of it is that some people are made uncomfortable by the personal decisions of others without any judgement taking place.

Maybe the person saying no wants you to know why because they are not saying no to you the person, but no to the sandwich. It could show an appreciation of the offer, and a rejection of the item being offered but not the person doing the offering.

Totally. It's a matter of preference and how your brain is wired. I'm just a stickler for logic and how it flows. I find it very fascinating how people think and come to conclusions. People think I'm insane because of this.

 

[creatchee]

I think Brawndo Addict touched on this. It's not so much the political and social implications that is annoying, but rather the presumptuous jump in logic. If I were to offer you a sandwich, you said "no" and then I were to ask "why not", stating that you're a vegan is a perfectly reasonable response. It complies with logical flow of the conversation because each answer satisfies each question. But to answer with "I'm a vegan" without first saying yes or no or giving me the chance to ask why, is an illogical bypass in the conversation. You're getting ahead of me, basically. Such a response doesn't answer the question. A simple yes or no question is met with an arguably politicized statement, that wasn't asked for. It's useless information, but made worse because a simple question was ignored in order to make an unnecessary act of expression.

Plus, yeah, some people are smug assholes. Some folks have passive aggressive, self righteous agendas for every little thing because they feel they are so self important that they believe everyone else needs to to know "why" to everything.

You ignore the politicized nature of the initial offer. That sandwich - the bread, the condiments, the cheese, the meat, the veggies - every component of it, individually and as a whole, is drenched in your personal politics.

Was the bread fresh or bagged loaf? Personal politics.

Was it ham or turkey? Politics.

American, Swiss, provolone, other or none? Politics out the ass.

Mayo? Politics. Mustard? Politics. Horseradish? Politics.

Why stop there? The store you bought the ingredients that made up the sandwich was chosen due to your personal politics. The car you drove to get there is politically motivated. The gas you drove ten streets further to save 2 cents a gallon inn is 98 octane politics. Hell - the house or apartment you live in was chosen by the same politics that I'm repeating over and over again. And I'm repeating it over and over again because EVERYTHING IN OUR LIFE IS DICTATED BY PERSONAL POLITICS.

To question somebody's motivations or intent with revealing their own personal politics when offered something that has every atom infused with our own is both shortsighted and asinine. We opened the door and punched them metaphorically with ours - they merely put their guard up with their own.

 

[TakeItSlowDude]

It works in the sense that she is not making a moral judgement on any given person. When offered a meat sandwich, a vegan would reject it (or atleast have trouble accepting it) because they believe eating meat is wrong. Yet that doesn't necessarily mean they have anything against people who do eat meat. She's going to argue that GTA is sexist and sexism is wrong, but at no point does she attack anyone in particular for liking it.

That's what the video's analogy is about. The assumption that simply because a person made a moral judgement on a subject, and found the subject lacking in that morality, that moral judgement transfers over onto people who disagree and partake in that subject. People associate themselves too strongly with the particular subject, even if it's a minor part of their lives, and believe it is an attack on them when it's not. That's the whole point of the analogy.

So just wait, are you saying that Sarkeesian is just making videos and doing analysis just for fun or as a simple expression of her own distaste? A moral judgement is a part of her videos because without it why would anyone bother changing anything? One would be basically admitting that GTA is benign by not transferring any of the moral judgement to the people consuming GTA. The only criticism that could be leveled at GTA and games after such an admission would be that games fail at raising the consciousness of the people who consume them. Even that criticism would invite significant debate since people disagree all the time whether or not particular issues are even valid, to what extent should games be reduced down to being learning experiences, are games even decent vehicles for consciousness raising when so many concessions have to be made to keep them engaging, ect.

 

[LevelNth]

I still don't get the whole Sarkesian thing, and I feel like every time I read something or watch something it still doesn't explain it properly.

Even video 1 here, it just glosses over the most important part. Kickstarter began, everything going fine... then all of sudden people started going nuts at her? Huh? Wasn't the campaign still going, aka. no videos posted yet as a result? What triggered it?

All this video said was 'someone pointed the finger at her on 4chan'. I don't know what that means. The kickstarter was ripping people off? Comments she posted? I have no idea what triggered anything.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

I still don't get the whole Sarkesian thing, and I feel like every time I read something or watch something it still doesn't explain it properly.

Even video 1 here, it just glosses over the most important part. Kickstarter began, everything going fine... then all of sudden people started going nuts at her? Huh? Wasn't the campaign still going, aka. no videos posted yet as a result? What triggered it?

All this video said was 'someone pointed the finger at her on 4chan'. I don't know what that means. The kickstarter was ripping people off? Comments she posted? I have no idea what triggered anything.

A feminist look at videogames. That's all it took.

 

[DOG3NZAKA]

You ignore the politicized nature of the initial offer. That sandwich - the bread, the condiments, the cheese, the meat, the veggies - every component of it, individually and as a whole, is drenched in your personal politics.

Was the bread fresh or bagged loaf? Personal politics.

Was it ham or turkey? Politics.

American, Swiss, provolone, other or none? Politics out the ass.

Mayo? Politics. Mustard? Politics. Horseradish? Politics.

Why stop there? The store you bought the ingredients that made up the sandwich was chosen due to your personal politics. The car you drove to get there is politically motivated. The gas you drove ten streets further to save 2 cents a gallon inn is 98 octane politics. Hell - the house or apartment you live in was chosen by the same politics that I'm repeating over and over again. And I'm repeating it over and over again because EVERYTHING IN OUR LIFE IS DICTATED BY PERSONAL POLITICS.

To question somebody's motivations or intent with revealing their own personal politics when offered something that has every atom infused with our own is both shortsighted and asinine. We opened the door and punched them metaphorically with ours - they merely put their guard up with their own.

By answering with "I'm a vegan" without first saying yes or no is motivated by the assumption that 1) the person asking would have a follow up question and 2) the other person cares that you're a vegan or passing any other form of judgment at all. As I mentioned, it's a bypass in logic but also an unnecessary defense mechanism as well. Why are you so anxious that you need to defend and justify yourself before I even ask why when all I did was ask simple yes or no question? For all you know, it could have ended without me asking why.

Everything you mentioned are assumptions without ever being asked. Of course you can question everything and anything, infinitely. That is why it is best to satisfy simple questions with simple answers. I don't think anyone would offer a sandwich in order to make some kind of statement. But answering a yes or no question without yes or no surely does and is inherently awkward simply because it's defensive, presumptuous and ultimately leads to more questions that may not have even been asked

 

[LevelNth]

A feminist look at videogames. That's all it took.

Oh so the whole thing really did start kind of out of the blue midway through the kickstarter? There wasn't anything in particular that triggered it?

I'm watching a 'response video' now and the guy is saying Sarkessian had 'no evidence to support her claims', but I have no idea if he means the harassment, or what.

Really just more confused now.